I really can't think of many stories that don't follow those two rules, except by misinterpretation of what these rules mean. I also can't understand why anyone would write a story that didn't follow these two rules?

I guess I try to follow those rules in one form or another, but I don't get too hung up on the wording of the rules more than the wording of the story.

My writing improved greatly once I realized that I don't have to explain who these people are and how they got to where they are. I just start with them doing what they are doing to make the story happen.

Don't mind the gap. Readers need a lot less hand-holding than you think. No need to spell everything out. Small details carry a long way and things left unsaid are often just as effective. Same goes for events: subtract them from your story until it breaks.

Go for the jugular. Write towards problems, not away from them. When in doubt, always choose the more emotionally painful option. Never miss a chance to play with shame, guilt, anxiety or regret. And if you're afraid to write something, write just that.

A question to all: If you could only choose two, what rules would you say are most important to your writing? Try to be more specific than "Make it interesting".

1. Write about characters that are as relatable to as many people as possible. This is not meant as a savvy marketing choice. Rather, I want to provide protagonists that the reader can readily adapt to, someone who you can imagine bumping into on the street.

This is far more difficult than I originally imagined. My second rule is something that may or may not be a cardinal rule of my writing. But I find myself doing it, or striving to do it, whenever I start a new story.

2. Don't write about realistic situations, or avoid social realism. My favourite short stories tend to be have aspects of magical realism and/or are very intertextual. I enjoy having my everyday characters navigate worlds where reality is slightly more malleable than they are used to.

The first draft is a huge pile of clay that you've laboriously heaped on your table, patting it into a rough shape as you go along. From the second draft onward, you'll cut away chunks, add bits, pat and punch and pinch, until you finally have a gorgeous figure of, oh, Marcus Aurelius. Or a duck. But a damn fine duck.

#2 The writer needs to make the reader sympathize with the main character, whether they fucking like it or not.

I hear everyone say "you need sympathetic characters," to which I ask: Why? I've read sympathetic characters--a lot of them, in fact--and in the end, I didn't care for them anymore than the characters who're rotten bastards. (Actually, the rotten bastards tend to have the better voice.)

Honestly, I believe it's the interesting characters that make me want to invest in them, the ones who are slightly (or really) fucked up. There's something compelling about those screwy characters, you want to read on, figure out what makes them tick, if they ever get through their struggles (either external or internal). And those are the characters who will give you one hell of a ride.